The Mad Mahdi

From 1881-85 Muhammed Ahmed proclaimed himself the Mahdi and established what could be described as the first modern Islamist state in Sudan. His fanatical followers, nicknamed "fuzzy-wuzzies", held their own against the more advanced British, Egyptian and Ethiopian armies, and weren't defeated until 1898

The Madhi is the prophesied messiah for Muslims, right? Wouldn't Ahmed have been seen as a heretic by the rest of the Islamic world for setting himself up as an alternative leader to the Ottoman Caliph?

Ahmad's Dervish followers wore distinctive white robes covered in dark patches. This one was brought back as a trophy by a British officer

A Dervish with sword, shield and dagger. The bolt action rifles that replaced the Martini Henry put the British at a disadvantage as the new bullets simply passed through enemies instead of lodging in their bodies and bringing them down


Edited by Nick1986 - 17-Feb-2013 at 07:42

Collection of Dervish spears. They don't like it up em!
http://www.spearcollector.com/Soedan/Soedan%20main.html

“The bolt action rifles that replaced the Martini Henry put the British at a disadvantage as the new bullets simply passed through enemies instead of lodging in their bodies and bringing them down”

Apart from the fact that a .303 round “passing” through a body would do a lot to bring him down I find the above statement rather strange.

The British at the time of the Battle of Omdurman in 1898 were equipped with Lee Metford rifles many of which would have been the original .45 calibre (the Martini having been replaced about 10 years before), or the then new .303 Lee Enfield.   Both had a range of about 2,800 yards, obviously less as a section weapon, and a relatively skilled rifleman could put 10 rounds a minute down range. So fast in fact that few years later at the beginning of the Great War the Germans were convinced the British had machineguns when in fact they were just firing the Lee Enfield.  Kitchener also had 40 single-barrelled Maxim machine-guns capable of firing 600 rounds a minute.

Kitchener’s had 17,600 Sudanese and Egyptian troops plus 8,200 British regulars, while the Dervishes numbered around 60,000.  It was estimated that the Dervishes had about 15,000 captured rifles, so not just armed with spears and swords, though they did carry them as well.

The battle was a massacre but not perhaps as one sided as the anti imperialist camp would have us believe, at one point the 21^st Lancers had to charge the Dervish lines taking 71 casualties and MacDonald’s Brigade, mainly Sudanese had to stand against 3,000 Dervishes attacking from three sides.

However within five hours 11,000 Dervishes were dead and around 16,000 wounded (and left on the field to their fate) the Anglo-Egyptian force had 500 dead and wounded.

The reason was certainly superior fire power, mainly the Maxim’s I would imagine, the Dervishes forces had plenty of rifles (also artillery pieces and machineguns) but lacked the skill and training to use them to effect.  The original plan was to draw Kitchener forward so he could be attacked from 3 sides but he did not fall for it.  Finally the fact that the Dervishes believed that the banners with Koranic texts they carried made them bullet proof did not help their cause, even if the rounds merely “passed” through them.

Originally posted by Coritani “The bolt action rifles that replaced the Martini Henry put the British at a disadvantage as the new bullets simply passed through enemies instead of lodging in their bodies and bringing them down” Apart from the fact that a .303 round “passing” through a body would do a lot to bring him down I find the above statement rather strange. The British at the time of the Battle of Omdurman in 1898 were equipped with Lee Metford rifles many of which would have been the original .45 calibre (the Martini having been replaced about 10 years before), or the then new .303 Lee Enfield.   Both had a range of about 2,800 yards, obviously less as a section weapon, and a relatively skilled rifleman could put 10 rounds a minute down range. So fast in fact that few years later at the beginning of the Great War the Germans were convinced the British had machineguns when in fact they were just firing the Lee Enfield.  Kitchener also had 40 single-barrelled Maxim machine-guns capable of firing 600 rounds a minute. Kitchener’s had 17,600 Sudanese and Egyptian troops plus 8,200 British regulars, while the Dervishes numbered around 60,000.  It was estimated that the Dervishes had about 15,000 captured rifles, so not just armed with spears and swords, though they did carry them as well. The battle was a massacre but not perhaps as one sided as the anti imperialist camp would have us believe, at one point the 21st Lancers had to charge the Dervish lines taking 71 casualties and MacDonald’s Brigade, mainly Sudanese had to stand against 3,000 Dervishes attacking from three sides. However within five hours 11,000 Dervishes were dead and around 16,000 wounded (and left on the field to their fate) the Anglo-Egyptian force had 500 dead and wounded. The reason was certainly superior fire power, mainly the Maxim’s I would imagine, the Dervishes forces had plenty of rifles (also artillery pieces and machineguns) but lacked the skill and training to use them to effect.  The original plan was to draw Kitchener forward so he could be attacked from 3 sides but he did not fall for it.  Finally the fact that the Dervishes believed that the banners with Koranic texts they carried made them bullet proof did not help their cause, even if the rounds merely “passed” through them.

Victorian generals believed savages were less likely to stop if merely wounded. A soldier from a European country would seek medical attention, but a fanatic with a spear would carry on until he reached the enemy. Soft lead bullets (including the dumdum round) were introduced with the intent of blowing big holes in enemies. Their use was prohibited by international law, but this didn't stop the British using them in their colonial wars, or ignoring the Geneva Convention and using them against the Germans:
http://joshuaandandrew.blogspot.co.uk/2010/03/dumdum-rounds.html

The uniform of the Dervishes was based on the Madhi's clothes. The red and blue patches were originally a symbol of poverty and asceticism
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=6SigsQe95coC&lpg=PA40&dq=dervish%20war%20sudan&pg=PA40#v=onepage&q&f=false: